jump to navigation

Is Mass Surveillance in America Really That Bad? June 8, 2013

Posted by Dindy in barack obama, Current Events, iraq, Islam, Muslims, Politics, privacy, Right wing, Terrorism.
Tags: , , , , , , ,
add a comment

Mass Surveillance in America

On Wednesday, the Guardian published a secret court order requiring Verizon to hand over data for all the calls made on its network on an “ongoing, daily basis.” Other revelations about surveillance of phone and digital communications have followed.

That the National Security Agency has engaged in such activity isn’t entirely new: Since 9/11, we’ve learned about large-scale surveillance by the spy agency from a patchwork of official statements, classified documents, and anonymously sourced news stories.

 

This is an example of the slippery slope. Almost all of Congress supported the Patriot Act when it was passed, and few Americans protested (yes, I WAS one of the protesters.) But now that we have started down the slippery slope that is the Patriot Act, they are finding more and more ways to infringe on our privacy. And at first glance, it seems fairly innocuous– they collect metadata regarding calls made in which one of the participants is outside of the US. Then they may initiate further surveillance and tap the phones. Who can complain about that?

Except my future son-in-law has family in the UK and calls them frequently. Now surely none of them would show up on the surveillance radar– but how do we know that, because we don’t know how they select the phones which will be tapped and whose phones they select? My almost son-in-law has a fairly common name, and we know from the experience my dh, Bill Robinson, has had at airports since 9-11 that merely having a name that is similar to someone who is on the Watch List is enough to warrant additional screening at the airport. Either that, or Bill, himself, is on the Watch list, which given his history of writing letters to the editor criticizing the Bush Administration is not inconceivable.

Then, I have another friend with family in Iran. They also speak frequently on the phone. Well we KNOW that anybody who lives in Iran is automatically suspect, right? (No, I don’t really believe that, but there are many who do!) So are they being tapped?

I have FaceBook friends who are from Pakistan, Iraq and other Middle Eastern countries. We became friends when I was playing Farmville and have remained friends. I’ve even chatted with a few of them on FB Chat. I don’t really know much about any of them, but what if by virtue of our FB chats and the fact that we are FB friends, any of us comes under suspicion?

Even if the current situation is not unreasonable, how do we know that the next permutation of this act won’t be? The Act started in 2001 allowing the sharing of “tangible” data such as tax forms,  books, business records and library check out records. It wasn’t till 2006 that we found out about the warrantless data mining of phone records. Then in 2007, the FBI and NSA started getting access to info from Microsoft, and in subsequent years Apple and Google. Well crap! That suddenly makes my Yahoo Account feel much more secure than the Google Account I’ve held for years as my very private email account. And with the purchase of my last Android phone and my iPAD, I now make frequent purchases through Google Check Out. So does that mean that the government now knows how much time I waste playing Angry Birds? Or are they tracking my purchase of John Denver Music with suspicion since he was known as a hippie peace freak?

The trouble is, it’s hard to argue with a program that has apparently been a factor in preventing further terrorist attacks in the US. It’s hard to argue with success. But how much are we willing to give up for that security? On the one hand, it’s easy for me to say that the government is welcome to look at any of my phone records, Amazon book orders and Angry Bird purchases they want– but there are a few problems with that– what if they start tracking what I watch on TV? What if they start instructing their satellite cams to zoom in on my house? How do I know they aren’t already doing so?

And what if they start taking a perfectly innocuous action of mine– and decide it’s suspicious? We’ve all had the experience of surfing the web and being pulled into a website we really didn’t want to see by inadvertently clicking on something else. Or, sometimes, in my attempt to learn about a subject, I might inadvertently  end up on a website the NSA has marked as suspicious. Will they then increase their surveillance of me? Start tapping my phones? Start reading my emails? Do I have anything in there I don’t want the government to read or know about?

Well, I have, on rare occasions,  criticized Obama. I’ve criticized Dubya and Cheney a lot, and if Cheney is still running things from his secret bunker as some have claimed, I might be in trouble. I have also frequently criticized the Patriot Act, right wing politics and Faux News. I’ve said, more than once, that Gitmo should be closed. Does that open me up to greater suspicion?

Many think that my aforementioned dh has become an apologist for Islam as he frequently argues against the anti-Muslim hysteria that we frequently encounter here in the US and in Texas. Does that automatically open him and me up to more suspicion?

It’s easy to scoff and say, “My life is an open book and the government is welcome to poke through my underwear drawer any time they like.” But are they really? If the organization doing the searching is determined to find something, I am not so sure that they won’t be able to dig up something. I did send a letter to President Nixon when I was a very little girl. In the letter I expressed my concern about the POW/MIA situation in Viet Nam. Clearly my anti-government tendencies go way back! (And no, I didn’t do it as a school assignment. It was of my own volition. I even got a letter back from him that my parents told me had his actual signature. I still have the letter somewhere.)

I do jaywalk rather frequently as it is the only way to get across the street in Fort Worth, and I have run the occasional red light and driven the wrong way down a one way street. I even go more than five miles above the speed limit on occasion.

I sent dirty letters to my husband when he was in Officer Training School in San Antonio, and I wore a black armband when Ronald Reagan was elected. I inhaled some second hand marijuana smoke while standing in line for a concert. I have muttered imprecations against the Catholic Church on more than one occasion. So I clearly am not as pure as the driven snow.

It seems kind of silly for me to be worried about this government erosion of our privacy, because I REALLY don’t have anything to hide. Yet, I am worried. How much more has the government failed to reveal about their data mining? And where do we draw the line and say enough is enough?

Advertisements

Guilty Until proven Innocent? Where Do We Draw the Line? June 29, 2011

Posted by frrobins in Airport Screenings, Current Events, Drug Screenings, Politics, privacy, Terrorism, Uncategorized.
Tags: , ,
add a comment

Freedom of speech has been something I’ve closely guarded. Like a lot of Americans, I’ve been less diligent about my privacy. I’ve had no qualms whatsoever about peeing in a cup for a drug screening required for employment. And I’ve thought a lot of the brouhaha over airport screenings overblown. Something that happened to a co-worker has caused me to reconsider that complacency.

“Gina” went in for a job interview. They were interested in hiring her and sent her off for a drug screening. Gina didn’t think much of it until she got there. During the screening, the nurse asked her to lift up her shirt to her bra and then to remove her pants and underwear…in front of the nurse. The nurse then proceeded to do a cavity search on her. Once that was completed, Gina was asked to pee in a cup in front of the nurse, with the nurse standing very close by at eye level with her hips.

I was shocked and horrified when Gina told me about this, as was another co-worker who was there. Gina was treated like a criminal. She’s never been in jail, never been charged with drug possession, and here they are treating her as though she is untrustworthy and making her prove her innocence.

Innocence is difficult to prove conclusively. Sure, Gina’s never been in jail for drug possession, but may be that’s because she’s never been caught. Sure, she tested negative, but may be she stopped for a few months to beat the system. Sure, she’s never acted like she’s under the influence of an illegal substance, but may be she’s really good at hiding it. That is why the burden of proof is on the person making the accusation of guilt.

The thing is, more and more we live in a society where innocent people are expected to prove that they are innocent. We undergo background searches and urine tests to get jobs. We get body pats or full body scans at the airport. An old lady with cancer has to remove her adult diaper to board a plane. A 6 year old is given a pat down before being allowed to board a plane. A young mother is bullied for asking that her pumped breastmilk not go through the scanners, per regulations.

And now to get a job, a young woman has to have a cavity search and pee in front of a nurse.

I used to think that people who argued against drug screenings and pat downs were privacy nuts arguing at the top of a slippery slope. Now I’m thinking that I was wrong. I’m starting to see that we’re moving to a world where people are presumed guilty until proven otherwise, and it’s not one that I want to live in.

Where I’m stuck on is how to change it. We live in a country where the nightly news feeds Americans a diet of fear. We give up our rights because we’re scared to do otherwise. How do we change the tide?

The Silver Lining About Wikileaks December 6, 2010

Posted by Bill in Afghanistan, barack obama, Current Events, Korea, Obama, Politics, Terrorism, Uncategorized.
Tags: , , , , , , ,
add a comment

While my first reaction to the Wikileaks adventure was to prosecute them and to wonder how bad the diplomatic fallout would be, my second reaction on reading the specifics was to applaud the professionalism of what our government is doing to solve the many problems around the world.  

What really tickled me was that  Sarah Palin, in an interview about her new book, was asked what she would do differently that President Obama about North Korea.  After going on about our need for energy independence and how vulnerable she feels as an American with President Obama in charge of our security she finally answered that she would pressure China to lean on North Korea to get them to behave. 

Sure enough that is what President Obama and his people are doing.  Guess we don’t need Sarah Palin as president after all.  And ain’t that a relief, you betcha. 

Anyway, these leaks giving our diplomats an embarrassing moment.  However they do have the virtue of showing that the Obama administration is doing the right things in protecting and furthering America’s security and interests.  

I thought that this column by Leslie Gelb that appeared in the Dallas Morning News today summed up my thoughts very nicely. 

From   http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/viewpoints/stories/DN_1206edi_gelb.29020a91c.html

Leslie Gelb: How the WikiLeaks scandal actually helped the U.S.
In explaining his deed publicly, WikiLeaker Julian Assange suggests that what he’s doing is uncovering American misdeeds and lies. Yet here’s what he missed in what he turned over to the drooling press: Our diplomats were doing a good job.

Indeed, when you turn off his nonsense and stop listening to the strange commentary on cable news and even on the front pages of great newspapers, when you actually read the documents, here’s what you see: American leaders and American diplomats trying to solve crucial world problems.

U.S. policymakers and diplomats are shown, quite accurately, doing what they are supposed to do: ferreting out critical information from foreign leaders, searching for paths to common action and struggling with the right amount of pressure to apply on allies and adversaries. And in most cases, the villain is not Washington, but foreign leaders escaping common action with cowardice and hypocrisy.

Washington needs China’s help in bolstering sanctions against Iran, and China balks for fear of jeopardizing its oil and gas flow from that country. The Obama team arranges for Saudi Arabia to guarantee any loss in supply to China. If the world wants to slow or even prevent Iran’s march to nuclear weaponry, this is a key path to doing so.

The U.S. discovers that North Korea has manufactured medium-range missiles and is trying to deliver them to Iran through China. The Obama team discovers this, informs Beijing and asks Beijing to stop the transfer. Beijing declines. Really creepy.

Yemen’s leader takes public responsibility for American missile attacks against al-Qaeda in Yemen. He wants to diminish the power of these terrorists, as do Americans and most others in the world. The “lie” by the Yemeni president is a harmless way to get a critical job done — that is, the job of fighting international terrorism. WikiLeaks tears away the political cover of Yemen’s leaders.

No country has anywhere near as much influence over nutty North Korea as China. So, U.S. diplomats are searching desperately to figure out Chinese thinking about North Korea in order to compose a plan for avoiding war on the Korean Peninsula. So, the Wikileakers expose some Chinese leaders who are actually trying to give us some insight into Chinese thinking about North Korean craziness. They won’t do that again soon.

Time and again, as one actually reads these cables, one has to be heartened by the professionalism and the insights of U.S. diplomats. What are they doing? They are not lying, and U.S. leaders are not lying. They are actually, believe it or not, trying to solve problems. That seriousness of purpose and the professionalism to execute it is what jumps out at you in these materials.

So, the naïve say, it’s good to show the effectiveness of our diplomats. Give me a break. Ask any American diplomat to choose between looking intelligent in leaked cables and making progress toward avoiding war.

None of this is to say that there should not be leaks, or that the press should not pursue classified information that is necessary or very helpful to a sensible public debate on policy. If a U.S. administration is lying, or distorting the facts, or telling one story to the public and another to itself, then by all means, let’s have it out in public. If the U.S. government is concocting intelligence in order to justify wars, let’s hope an enterprising reporter finds it out for the rest of us.

But the WikiLeaks dump is not about providing essential information to Americans or to others — information they need for serious policy discussion. This massive trashing by WikiLeaks of a legitimate effort by the U.S. government to preserve confidentiality is the very least a shame and at the most, a crime.

 Leslie H. Gelb, a former New York Times columnist and senior government official, is author of Power Rules: How Common Sense Can Rescue American Foreign Policy (HarperCollins 2009). A longer version of this essay first appeared in The Daily Beast, http://www.thedailybeast.com. © 2010 RTST, Inc.

The Right to Be Insensitive September 8, 2010

Posted by Dindy in Church and State, Current Events, Islam, Muslims, Religion, Religious Right, Terrorism.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
add a comment

In the short story The Accident, the great science fiction writer James White tells the story of the origin of Sector General, the interplanetary medical center created to provide medical care to aliens. The story tells of two war heroes of different species, Grawlya –Ki and MacEwan, who had been locked in mortal combat between their spaceships and both crash landed on an unknown world. Determined to learn all he could about his enemy, Grawlya-Ki boarded MacEwan’s ship. MacEwan was gravely injured, dying. Grawlya-Ki did not know when or if his distress beacon would bring rescuers.

After a 6-hour one-on-one battle, the two were probably going to die together. Because there was no longer anything left to fight about and because they had developed a respect for each other during the fight, they began to communicate and in so doing, found that the entire war between their two peoples had been based on a joint misunderstanding.

When the Orligian rescue ship arrived, the two were barely alive and beyond medical help so the Orligians put the control room of the spaceship and the two combatants into stasis and transported them to the central square of the planetary capital of Orligia where for 236 years it served as a very effective war memorial. When medical science finally progressed to the point where the beings’ wounds could be healed, they were released from stasis and eventually founded the Sector General hospital which brought peace to the galaxy through providing medical care for all.

It is to be hoped that something similar will happen with the Cordoba Center, which most Americans know as the Ground Zero mosque even though it is not actually a mosque nor is it at Ground Zero– but since when have facts ever stood in the way of a good sound bite?

There is a great deal of rhetoric slinging about the country about the Cordoba Center, which is actually a proposed Islamic Community Center that will not even be visible from Ground Zero. President Obama lost approval points and raised anew questions about his religious beliefs when he stated that he supported the right of the Moslems to build the mosque and dared to voice the opinion that freedom of religion applies to everyone, not just Christians.

If the Cordoba Center has served as a divisive political issue for the upcoming elections, it has also divided Moslems, many of whom have come out publicly against the proposed center, some on the grounds that it is insensitive and some who state that it is being built by radical Islamists who are thumbing their nose at the 9-11 tragedy.

It is the insensitivity of the proposed Cordoba Center that I keep coming back to. I can fully accept that the developers do not mean to be insensitive. I can completely accept that they mean it to be a center for people to learn more about Islam. However I also think they do not realize that Ground Zero has assumed a hallowed place in the mind of most Americans and that for most of us, 9-11 will forever be remembered as the day our world changed for the worst.  I remember the fear and sense of loss I felt after 9-11, not just for the lives that were lost but for the sense of security that we as Americans had lost. Never again would we be able to feel safe in our own country, on our own land. People who have grown up in places continually torn asunder by war and terrorism have never known what it is like to feel complete safe, but we did before 9-11.

Before 9-11, we were largely untouched by terrorism. We remember when we could board airplanes without having to take our shoes off and without having to discard all our liquids and without having our bags routinely searched. We remember when the New York landscape was dominated by the twin towers and the jarring after images of the cityscape with nothing where the twin towers used to be. We remember when we could check out library books without worrying that the FBI was checking our reading history, and we remember a time when we could buy airplane tickets without having to worry about a watch list.

Our world changed forever on 9-11 and Ground Zero is a continual reminder to us of not only the lives that were lost but the way of life that went with them. While I can wholeheartedly support the constitutional rights of the Moslems to build the Cordoba Center, inside I keep thinking that it is insensitive. I understand that they don’t mean to be insensitive, but it is.

But…

It was insensitive of the NRA to hold their annual meeting in Denver after Columbine, but they did so anyway, and it was their right to do so. We do not have a right not to be offended in this country, and there are no laws against being insensitive. And maybe, just maybe the Moslems supporting the community center are right to force the issue, to say, in effect– “Look, we know you blame every single member of the Moslem religion for what happened on 9-11 but that is not what we are about. We are about community, about learning, about families, and if you come to our center, you might learn something about us.”

It’s kind of the same strategy Rhett Butler made Scarlett O’Hara adopt when he had her wear the very daring gown to the party the day after she was caught kissing Ashley Wilkes. People are going to be talking about you anyway so you might as well give them something to talk about. And people are going to be fussing about Moslems anyway so you might as well give them something to fuss about.  So maybe fifty or one hundred years from now, school children will visit the Cordoba Center and learn about it in schools as a monument to peace and a tribute to how two vastly different groups of people were brought together to form a more perfect union.

The freedom of speech and religion that we have in this country did not come easily. We fought hard for our right to be a nation, for our right to govern ourselves and for our right to make our own decisions about religion. The peace that we usually enjoy in this country was also hard-won, and in many cases it is only a surface peace, hiding a roiling jumble of conflicts beneath. If some of us have to be offended today in order for there to be a chance of peace in the future, so be it. I support not only the right of Feisal AbdulRauf to build the Cordoba Center, but I support the Center itself. May it lead to greater understanding between our peoples.

Yes America, There Are Moderate Muslims September 5, 2010

Posted by Bill in Islam, Muslims, Religion, Terrorism.
Tags: , , , , , ,
add a comment

With the controversy over building a Mosque near ground zero the beliefs of Muslims has been much discussed.  Unfortunately much of that discussion has been in the guise of misinformation and error; the result of biases, hatred, and a very human desire to take a complex situation and keep it simple – even if it does not match reality.

 This is my attempt to at least slow the flood of wrong and incomplete information and make people think about what is being said.   Our mainstream media should be focusing on this, but are not.  What follows are things that should be in our mainstream media, but are not.  

 

The Holocaust

From The Jewish Daily Forward:   http://www.forward.com/articles/130013/

Krakow, Poland — It was a perfect summer day at the Dachau concentration camp. The clear skies and pleasant breeze seemed almost offensive. And there, beneath the main monument, a bronze sculpture of writhing bodies intermeshed with barbed wire, was an uncommon sight: a group of Muslims leaders prostrate in prayer.

At the end of the service, prayer leader Muzammil Siddiqi, imam of the Islamic Society of Orange County, California, offered up an additional prayer: “We pray to God that this will not happen to the Jewish people or to any people anymore.”

Siddiqi was one of eight American Muslim leaders on a study tour to Dachau and Auschwitz that was co-sponsored by a German think tank and the Center for Interreligious Understanding, a New Jersey-based interfaith dialogue group.

Mosque Near Ground Zero

From http://www.news9.com/global/story.asp?s=13032103

OKLAHOMA CITY — An Oklahoma City Muslim group said the religious freedom issue has already been settled, but said sensitivity is needed over whether to build a Mosque near Ground Zero.

The American Muslim Association of Oklahoma took out a full page ad in Monday’s “Oklahoman.” It’s a call to move the project to a mutually agreeable site. Spokesman Saleem Nizami said it’s time for moderate Muslims to speak out. He said the teachings of Islam demand sensitivity.

“It has become an iconic date 9/11 and the twin towers, so there is something related to that and people are becoming emotional. It is our duty to make sure we pacify and move away,” said Nizami.

Despite good intentions and the legal right to build on that spot, the sensitivity teachings of Islam demand a new location.

“We’ve got to take into consideration the sentiments of the people. What difference does it make if it is there or five miles from there? It’s not going to make any difference,” Nizami said. “If the purpose was to get Islam and the West relations going together, this has brought more division actually.”

And Nizami said the reason for that division is extremism on both sides.

“It’s time that people who are practical stood up. It was due a long time ago,” the American Muslim Association of Oklahoma spokesman said.

“With this ad I hope people realize that yes, there are people, who are Muslim, and who are just like anybody else. And who are solid 100 percent U.S. citizens, defending the Constitution, living by the rule of law. They want to make their lives here, they want to be part of this whole country,” Nizami said.

From

  http://bigpeace.com/jmwaller/2010/08/24/more-muslims-speak-out-against-ground-zero-mosque/

 Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf bills his plan for an Islamic cultural center near Ground Zero — which the city’s Landmarks Preservation Commission is expected to vote on tonight — as a platform for interfaith cooperation, dialogue and understanding.

But the plan is obviously provocative and confrontational — and it’s hard to imagine that Rauf didn’t know that long before it became public.

That’s one big reason why American Muslims, like other Americans, should reject the project — particularly if they really want to adhere to traditional Islamic principles. I say that as a Muslim convert since 1997.

Traditional, moderate Islam teaches Muslims living in non-Muslim-majority societies to obey the laws and customs of the country in which they reside. They must avoid conflict with their non-Muslim neighbors whenever possible.

Yet it was no secret that a major Islamic construction project near Ground Zero would offend many New Yorkers; indeed, American Muslims themselves were uneasy about the idea from the beginning. Rauf, while he preaches peace, chose the path of controversy and provocation by originating this mosque project.

Muslim leaders dealing with non-Muslims are also supposed to practice moderation — not only in words, but also in their deeds and associations. Rauf portrays himself as a

spiritual moderate. But he has maintained links with Muslim radicals, including enablers of terror, whom he declines to disavow. These include the Malaysian politician Mahathir Mohamad, who supports Hamas’ Gaza dictatorship.

The imam refuses to identify the prospective financial contributors to his undertaking — so we don’t know if there are any radicals among his donors.

American Muslim leaders, especially Sufis and other moderates who assert that peace may be attained through dialogue, cannot accept any alignment with Hamas or any similar organization.

Nor, for that matter, can Muslim leaders allow any accommodation with the clerical tyranny in Iran or with such extremists as the Saudi Wahhabis, Muslim Brotherhood (of which Hamas is a branch) or Pakistani jihadism. Unfortunately, such groups now heavily influence American Islam.

Muslim radicals may see the argument over the Ground Zero mosque as a test of whether Muslims have equal rights in America.

But Muslims will gain such security through sensitivity to their non-Muslim neighbors and resolute opposition to radicalism, not through defiant posturing or defending extremist activities.

Denouncing Terrorist Acts 

From   http://www.mfsd.org/

Muslims for Secular Democracy (MSD) joins the Jamiatul-ulema-e-Hind (JUHI, an organization with 10 million Indian Muslim clerics as its members), in strongly denouncing all those responsible for the serial bomb blasts in Bangalore (Karnataka state) on Friday and Ahmedabad (Gujarat state) on Saturday. It extends condolence and expresses its solidarity with the innocent victims of this cowardly and inhuman violence in both cities.     

No one has yet claimed responsibility for the blasts in Bangalore, which apparently were deliberately timed for soon after Friday prayers. Meanwhile, through an e-mail sent out minutes before the first blast in Ahmedabad, an as yet unknown entity calling itself the “Indian Mujahideen” has claimed it committed the dastardly deed “in the name of Allah” and in retaliation, among other things, for the killing of Muslims during the Gujarat genocide in 2002.  

Intelligence agencies have yet to establish whether the self-styled Indian Mujihideen is a real entity or a mere cover for the heinous crimes of some terrorists, Muslim or otherwise. For MSD, all forms of terrorism — committed anywhere in the world and irrespective of the cause, ideology or religion used to justify it — are to be unequivocally condemned. However, it applauds the Jamiat’s view that for a Muslim such nasty deeds are doubly reprehensible if committed by any Muslim since Islam categorically prohibits the targeting of innocents under any circumstance, not even in self-defence. The Quran clearly states that the targeting of even a single innocent person as equivalent to the massacre of all humankind. It may be recalled that less than two months ago, the Jamiat had organised a massive rally of half-a-million Muslims in New Delhi to swear allegiance to a fatwa against terrorism issued by the Darul-uloom Deoband.

And

There are no words that can condemn strongly enough the vicious terror attack on Mumbai, its residents and guests from all over the world. The ruthless attack is an attack on the soul of India and Mumbai, a country and people who have always been hospitable to people from all over the world.

We not only condemn this attack. We deeply mourn the loss of our finest policemen, chiefs and constable, who bear the brunt of vicious political vendetta when they carry out their duty.

India needs to stand united in the face of such an attack. Politicians of all hues and political parties with different affiliations must be compelled to implement structural and qualitative police reforms that have been repeatedly recommend by National Police Commission Reports since 1981 until 1989.

Terrorism and violence of all kinds needs to be meticulously dealt with. Our investigative and intelligence wings must be freed of political pressures and compulsions. There must be a depolarized and decommunalized discourse on terror. We need the immediate implementation of reforms in Indian Intelligence and the Indian Police Force.

Fatwas against Terrorism  

http://www.mfsd.org/Fatwas%20for%20peace%20ed.pdf

“As for suicide bombing, Islam forbids suicide, it forbids the taking of one’s own life.  Attacking civilians, women, children, and the elderly by blowing oneself up is absolutely forbidden in Islam.  No excuse can be made for the crimes committed in New York, Spain, and London and anyone who tries to make excuses for these acts is ignorant of Islamic Law (Sharia), and their excuses are a result of extremism and ignorance.”

And

2005: Fatwa, 500 Muslim clerics, UK July 18

‘Suicide bombings vehemently prohibited’

Response to suicide bombers who attacked three London subway trains and a double-decker bus, killing more than 50 people.

More than 500 British Muslim religious leaders and scholars issued a fatwa in response to the London bombs yesterday. Around 50 Muslim religious leaders from the British Muslim Forum (BMF) stood together by the Houses of Parliament to hear the fatwa read out.

Islam condemns the use of violence and the destruction of innocent lives and says suicide bombings are “vehemently prohibited”.

“We pray for the defeat of extremism and terrorism in the world. We pray for the peace, security and harmony to triumph in multicultural Great Britain.”

The BMF is an umbrella group launched in March 2005 with nearly 300 mosques affiliated to it. The fatwa will be read out in mosques across the country on Friday.

Another public statement, denouncing the suicide bombings, was made by more than 40 Islamic leaders and scholars at a meeting at London’s Islamic CulturalCentre, organised by the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB).

http://www.indcatholicnews.com/fatwa.html

 And

2005: Fatwa, Islamic Commission of Spain, March 11

‘Osama, al Qaeda outside Islam’

Response; on the first anniversary of the bomb blasts (‘Europe’s 9/11) in local train stations in Madrid on March 11, 2004 that killed 191 people and injured 1,500.

According to the Sharia, all who declare halal or allowed what God has declared haram or prohibited, like the killing of innocent people in terrorist attacks, have become Kafir Murtadd Mustahlil, that’s to say an apostate, by trying to make a crime such as the murder of innocents, halal (istihlal); a crime forbidden by the Sacred Koran and the Sunna of the Prophet Muhammad.

As long as Osama ben Laden and his organization defend the legality of terrorism and try to base it on the Sacred Koran and the Sunna, they are committing the crime of istihlal and they have become ipso facto apostates (kafir murtadd), who should not be considered Muslim nor be treated as such.

We declare that Osama ben Laden and his organization Al Qaida, responsible for the horrible crimes against the innocents who vilely were assassinated in the terrorist attack of 11 March in Madrid, are outside the parameters of Islam; and the same goes to all who wield the Sacred Koran and The Prophet’s Sunna to commit terrorist acts.

Based on this fatwa, we have requested the national government and Spanish mass media to stop using the words Islam or Islamic to describe these malefactors, given they are not Muslim nor have any relationship with our Ummaor Islamic Community; instead needing to call them Al Qaida terrorists, but without using Islamic as an adjective, since as it has been declared above, they are not legally so.

http://www.webislam.com/?idn=537

 And 

2005: Fatwa, Fiqh Council of North America, July 28

‘Criminals are no martyrs’

Response to the 7/7 bomb blasts in London. 145 Muslim organizations, mosques and imams in USA endorse the fatwa issued by Fiqh Council.

The Fiqh Council of North America wishes to reaffirm Islam’s absolute condemnation of terrorism and religious extremism.

Islam strictly condemns religious extremism and the use of violence against innocent lives. There is no justification in Islam for extremism or terrorism. Targeting civilians’ life and property through suicide bombings or any othermethod of attack is haraam – or forbidden – and those who commit these barbaric acts are criminals, not “martyrs.”

The Qur’an, Islam’s revealed text, states: “Whoever kills a person [unjustly]…it is as though he has killed all mankind. And whoever saves a life, it is as though he had saved all mankind.” (Qur’an, 5:32)

Prophet Muhammad said there is no excuse for committing unjust acts: “Do not be people without minds of your own, saying that if others treat you well you will treat them well, and that if they do wrong you will do wrong to them. Instead, accustom yourselves to do good if people do good and not to do wrong (even) if they do evil.”

In the light of the teachings of the Qur’an and Sunnah we clearly and strongly state:

1. All acts of terrorism targeting civilians are haraam (forbidden) in Islam.

2. It is haraam for a Muslim to cooperate with any individual or group that is involved in any act of terrorism or violence.

3. It is the civic and religious duty of Muslims to cooperate with law enforcement authorities to protect the lives of all civilians.

We pray for the defeat of extremism and terrorism. We pray for the safety and security of our country, the United States, and its people. We pray for the safetymand security of all inhabitants of our planet. We pray that interfaith harmony and cooperation prevail both in the United States and all around the globe.

 Democracy 

 From http://www.mfsd.org/msddeclaration.htm

 Unfortunately, some from among the Muslims make the job of their adversaries very easy. In India and internationally, those who claim to speak or act in the name of Muslims or Islam, help reinforce the image of Muslims as a community of  ‘fundamentalists’, ‘fanatics’, ‘extremists’, ‘anti-nationals’, a people ‘unprepared for, or incapable of, peaceful coexistence with others’.

 To some extent the media, too, is to be blamed: because of its preference for sensationalism, it plays up the statements of hotheads and muckrakers, while moderate, liberal voices find little mention, if at all. While continuing to consistently challenge the words and deeds of fanatics and extremists, Muslims for Secular Democracy proposes to consistently engage the media on its editorial choice that wittingly or unwittingly contributes towards building a negative image of Muslims.

 For minorities targeted by fascist forces the only guarantee of survival with dignity lies, not in gaining the so-called ‘goodwill of the majority’ as the RSS advises, but in the defense of India’s Constitution that guarantees them fundamental rights as equal citizens.

To defend the Constitution is to uphold the basic values enshrined in them against all sectarian, divisive, communal worldviews: not the sanghis alone. It is not possible to fight Hindu communalism without fighting against Muslim communalism, nor is it possible to fight Muslim communalism without fighting against Hindu communalism, because the different communalisms feed on each other.

 And further in:

By secularism is meant the insistence on a clear separation between religion and politics, between matters of faith and affairs of the state; by secularism is meant clear rejection of the idea of a theocratic state in the modern world.

To be secular is to affirm the universality of that principle, its applicability to all countries, irrespective of who constitutes a minority or majority.

Secularism rejects not only the theocratic state but also a majoritarian state that discriminates between citizens on the basis of religion, race or ethnicity; or, worse still, that pits one section of society against another. The claim that Hindu Rashtra would not be a theocratic state is no good news, because a non-theocratic fascist state can be worse.

 And

Later, it was felt that this, too, is not enough since tolerance implies a relationship between ‘superior’ and ‘inferior’. It was then that the idea emerged that for people of different sects to coexist peacefully, it is essential that matters of faith are separated from affairs of the State, so that the State had no religion. This separation of State/politics and religion was understood to mean not equal respect for all religions — Sarva dharma samabhav as the RSS argues — but the State’s aloofness from religious matters.

To say that the State has no religion does not mean that the State is anti-religion. Nor does it mean that State heads or other State functionaries have to be non-religious or anti-religious, or that they could not go to pray in a church, mosque or temple. Or, to take another example, no religious education was to be permitted in state funded schools. This obviously did not mean that children were prohibited from learning about their religion, but only that it was left to parents and communities to make private, non-State, arrangements for religious education).

And

Since last Saturday, Muslims have joined fellow-Indians in Mumbai city and elsewhere in the country to, condemn the barbaric assault on our metropolis, mourn the loss of precious lives, pay homage to those brave policemen and commandos who laid down their lives in the line of duty and express outrage at the all-too apparent collapse of our entire system of governance. 

Now on Sunday, December 7, 2008 Mumbai’s Muslims will assemble in large numbers in front of the Chatrapati Shivaji Train Terminus (VT) at 3 p.m. to condemn all extremist and terrorist activities in the name of Islam and to denounce extremist Muslim organisations and leaders who have openly declared themselves as enemies of India. Taking the lead from Mumbai, Muslims from Delhi, Lucknow, Kolkota, Bhopal, Ahmedabad, Hyderabad, Bengluru, Chennai and other cities will hold similar demonstrations in their respective cities, same date, same time.  

From the FBI website  http://www.fbi.gov/hq/ood/dcla/baltimore.htm

Imam Yahya Hendi is the Imam of the Islamic Society of Frederick in Frederick, Maryland and the Muslim chaplain at Georgetown University. He also serves as a member of the Islamic Jurisprudence Council of North America. He has served as an adjunct faculty member at Johns Hopkins University, Fordham University, and Hartford Seminary. Imam Hendi also teaches a very popular course at Georgetown University, “Inter-Religious Encounter.”

Imam Hendi was one of the Muslim leaders who met often with President George W. Bush in the aftermath of the September 11 tragedy. Imam Hendi frequently visits and lectures at churches and synagogues hoping to create positive relationships. In his lectures, he focuses on issues related to gender relations, world peace, political justice, and inter-religious and interfaith issues.

Imam Hendi has appeared on many national and international television and radio shows as an expert on interfaith dialogue and on Islam and Muslims. He has hosted several events to bring various religious and community leaders together. A graduate of the FBI Baltimore Citizens’ Academy, Imam Hendi participated in the grand opening of the Baltimore Division’s new building. In addition, Imam Hendi sponsored a tour of the Baltimore Division for the youth of the Islamic Society of Frederick.

To summarize then, one of the lies being spread is that all the terrorists who committed 9-11 and other atrocities are representative of all of Islam.   These people say that all Muslims are committed to undermining democracy, are willing to kill the innocent and think it justified, are committed to bringing about a strict and harsh version of Sharia Law. 

 A look at the above selections shows this to be false. 

 Further, a little reading of Islamic writings will also reveal differences in interpretation of the Qur’an and its application to life today, including differences in belief in how Sharia law is meant to be applied.   This and the fact that there are many different sects within Islam just as there are within Christianity should all be more than enough that Islam is not a monolithic religious system hell bent on killing all non-Muslims. 

This attempt to make the terrorists representative of all of Islam is not only a lie, but a lie that harms our fight against terrorism. 

First this sort of thinking deprives us of valuable allies – moderate Muslims.   A quick look at history shows that when moderate voices are silenced or rendered powerless then radicals take over.  Russia’s fall into communism is a valuable object lesson in this regards.

Next these arguments play into the terrorist’s hands.  They make a very effective propaganda tool for them; it provides supporting evidence for their claims that America is not really a land of religious freedom but instead a Christian nation intolerant of other religions and beliefs. 

Let me make clear that these people have a right to voice their opinion and I will defend their right to do so.  But just because they have a right to do so does not mean that their words are wise.  They are not.  Instead they are foolish and harmful, but no one ever said only wise speech was protected by our Constitution. 

Both of the above arguments are about how this hateful and wrong rhetoric effects us externally.   However there is a much more dangerous result that might arise is these voices are not answered with the truth. 

Usually this sort of rhetoric is just  a prelude to arguing that Islam should not enjoy the same protections under our Constitution that all other religions have.  That is an internal threat that is far graver than any external damage that might be done.    

Our Constitution and its protection of all it’s citizens rights are what makes the United States such a great country.  It is why so many immigrate here, why so many want to live here, why it has served as an example to so many new democracies.  

The terrorists wish to destroy that greatness.  With their blind arguments and hateful speech those lumping all Muslims as terrorists are helping the terrorists in their efforts. 

Islam encompasses a whole range of beliefs, just as Christianity does.  Many Muslims are our natural allies in the fight against terrorism, but only if we do not turn them against us by turning this into against a religion instead of a war against terrorism.